[PASSED] Citizenship And Birth Act

[Ardiveds]

“Ambassador, unless we are mistaken, current WA law dictates that personhood is to be ascribed at birth which means a stillborn child will not be ascribed personhood. How does this work with clause 7. b. ii ?”

Is a stillborn child not birthed?

“Yes, but its also dead. Are you seriously proposing granting personhood to a corpse?”

[South St Maarten]

You have still not sorted out Ara's concerns regarding "in no means," "a ceremonial manor," or "a single nationality"

I changed the i. to 8. and removed ii., unnecessarily complicated I suppose. Regardless, how would you suggest I express that this only applies to WA members? Doesn't all legislation automatically apply only to WA members?

[South St Maarten]

Is a stillborn child not birthed?

“Yes, but its also dead. Are you seriously proposing granting personhood to a corpse?”

Personally, yes, I would. But I realize such topic is controversial and therefore I have removed it from the proposal.

[Kenmoria]

“Why only ‘mother’ in clause 3? I can’t see a compelling reason for nationality to be matrilineal, rather than passed equally down both or a choice of one of the parents.”

[South St Maarten]

“Why only ‘mother’ in clause 3? I can’t see a compelling reason for nationality to be matrilineal, rather than passed equally down both or a choice of one of the parents.”

As ara pointed out previously, in times of dispute, the father's nationality is not always known and that could create situations where the exact citizenship(s) of a child are in doubt.

To simplify, it now requires the child to take the citizenship of the mother. If, let us say Kenmoria, would rather nationality be passed down equally between the parents it shall be done. But if South St Maarten just wants the mother, they can do so too.

[South St Maarten]

Did some minor grammatical/wording changes. Hope to finish a fourth draft later this week. - SSM

[Corporal Newkirk]

Hi i read this thread and I can't figure out why you are makeing another resolution to reduce statelessness when the World Assembly already has one?

[South St Maarten]

Hi i read this thread and I can't figure out why you are makeing another resolution to reduce statelessness when the World Assembly already has one?

The resolution you are referring to intends to stop states from needlessly taking away citizenship from people who did nothing wrong, rather, the Citizenship and Birth Act would solve the issue of making sure children, at birth, do not become stateless.

[Old Hope]

There are serious issues with this.
What happens if...
1.The identity of the mother is unknown to the state(s).
2.The child is born to a refugee from a non-member nation that does not recognize citizienship
3.The mother of the child is stateless.

If you always have to assign citizenship of the mother then people could end up with many citizienships. This is not really good - each citizienship carries obligations with it.

[South St Maarten]

There are serious issues with this.
What happens if...
1.The identity of the mother is unknown to the state(s).
2.The child is born to a refugee from a non-member nation that does not recognize citizienship
3.The mother of the child is stateless.

If you always have to assign citizenship of the mother then people could end up with many citizienships. This is not really good - each citizienship carries obligations with it.

1. 2. 3.

I could add a clause with the following:

Should the mother fit into those categories, the state tries for the father. And should the father not be available, jus soli will be instituted as an emergency option.

4. Yes, but this happens all the time. In fact, this resolution would reduce dual citizenship, I'd think. My good friend from Illinois, for example, has an Austrian mother and was born in America. Because Austria follows Jus sanguinis and America Jus Soli, he has and has always been a dual citizen. By making Jus sanguinis standard from the mother and then letting nations add the father / Jus soli as a supplement to that, I'd think that dual citizenship might be reduced, no?

[South St Maarten]

Fourth draft coming momentarily, meanwhile any other comments welcomed

- SSM

[Old Hope]

Why is it so important that people have to have citizienship in a member nation at all?

[Kenmoria]

Why is it so important that people have to have citizienship in a member nation at all?

(OOC: Here are some relevant sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which appeared in a quick Google search. The GA previously acknowledged the problem of statelessness in GA #386 Reducing Statelessness.)

[Old Hope]

Why is it so important that people have to have citizienship in a member nation at all?

(OOC: Here are some relevant sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which appeared in a quick Google search. The GA previously acknowledged the problem of statelessness in GA #386 Reducing Statelessness.)

Yes, but COCR says:

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: Here are some relevant sources: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, which appeared in a quick Google search. The GA previously acknowledged the problem of statelessness in GA #386 Reducing Statelessness.)

Yes, but COCR says:

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

OOC: The right to equal treatment under the law has never, ever been interpreted to give noncitizens the same rights. It means you cannot treat similarly situated people differently. A system where somebody has no citizenship leaves them potentially unable to participate fully in society without the member state ever violating CoCR.

[Wallenburg]

"We--no, I will not stand for this body to tell its member states who is and isn't a citizen of their nations. Burn it all, you may as well tell us to abolish our work councils and legislatures as well. Wallenburgians must be born of Wallenburgian blood. What dirt you happened to fall on is of no relevance to the nation to which your family belongs. Gerald, find some suitably violent way to destroy this draft copy. I'm going to go find some tea."

Ogenbond stands up and storms off just as quickly as he seemed to appear.

[Old Hope]

Yes, but COCR says:

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

OOC: The right to equal treatment under the law has never, ever been interpreted to give noncitizens the same rights. It means you cannot treat similarly situated people differently. A system where somebody has no citizenship leaves them potentially unable to participate fully in society without the member state ever violating CoCR.

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence. "equal in status in law"

[Crabaiaia]

I have a problem with this: what if the child is born in a dicatorship but the parents are citizens of a democracy?

[Kenmoria]

I have a problem with this: what if the child is born in a dicatorship but the parents are citizens of a democracy?

(OOC: The dictatorship has a choice on whether or not to institute jus solis, but the democracy must institute jus sanguis. This means that the child will have citizenship of the democratic country by default and only possible citizenship of the dictatorship. Method of governance has no bearing on this.)

[Separatist Peoples]

OOC: The right to equal treatment under the law has never, ever been interpreted to give noncitizens the same rights. It means you cannot treat similarly situated people differently. A system where somebody has no citizenship leaves them potentially unable to participate fully in society without the member state ever violating CoCR.

You are ignoring the first part of the sentence. "equal in status in law"

Ooc: no I'm not. That still doesn't mean what you think it means. No rational individual would suggest that it means that children have the same rights as adults. Per usual, your interpretation is just wrong.

[South St Maarten]

"We--no, I will not stand for this body to tell its member states who is and isn't a citizen of their nations. Burn it all, you may as well tell us to abolish our work councils and legislatures as well. Wallenburgians must be born of Wallenburgian blood. What dirt you happened to fall on is of no relevance to the nation to which your family belongs. Gerald, find some suitably violent way to destroy this draft copy. I'm going to go find some tea."

Ogenbond stands up and storms off just as quickly as he seemed to appear.

IC: Ambassador, you do understand that this act uses jus sanguis, not jus soli, as the basis for citizenship. jus soli is simply an add-on for nations who think that their dirt is important enough to make a person born on it worthy of citizenship. If this were to pass, Wallenburg, as a nation, you would be required to follow only jus sanguis, so, Wallenburgians must be born of Wallenburgian blood anyway. This is what you wanted in the first place!

I have a problem with this: what if the child is born in a dicatorship but the parents are citizens of a democracy?

As Kenmoria stated, by default such child would be born a citizen of a democracy and then if a dictatorship would also institute jus soli they would become a child of the dictatorship, too. Conversely, if the child is born in a democracy and the parents are citizens of a dictatorship, the child would be born a citizen of the dictatorship, unless of course the democracy also institutes jus soli. I lament such circumstances, but alas, they are inevitable.

Yes, but COCR says:

Article 1.

a ) All inhabitants of member states are equal in status in law and under its actions, and have the right to equal treatment and protection by the nation they inhabit or in which they are currently present.

OOC: The right to equal treatment under the law has never, ever been interpreted to give noncitizens the same rights. It means you cannot treat similarly situated people differently. A system where somebody has no citizenship leaves them potentially unable to participate fully in society without the member state ever violating CoCR.

SP is absolutely right. Are you implying that I, let us say as a Norwegian, can move to the United States and immediately vote for president? Am I to move to Austria and immediately try to become Chancellor? There is a reason for the difference of citizen's rights and overall equal treatment under the law.

-

Also, fourth draft hopefully later today.

[South St Maarten]

"We--no, I will not stand for this body to tell its member states who is and isn't a citizen of their nations. Burn it all, you may as well tell us to abolish our work councils and legislatures as well. Wallenburgians must be born of Wallenburgian blood. What dirt you happened to fall on is of no relevance to the nation to which your family belongs. Gerald, find some suitably violent way to destroy this draft copy. I'm going to go find some tea."

Ogenbond stands up and storms off just as quickly as he seemed to appear.

IC: Ambassador, you do understand that this act uses jus sanguis, not jus soli, as the basis for citizenship. jus soli is simply an add-on for nations who think that their dirt is important enough to make a person born on it worthy of citizenship. If this were to pass, Wallenburg, as a nation, you would be required to follow only jus sanguis, so, Wallenburgians must be born of Wallenburgian blood anyway. This is what you wanted in the first place!

I have a problem with this: what if the child is born in a dicatorship but the parents are citizens of a democracy?

As Kenmoria stated, by default such child would be born a citizen of a democracy and then if a dictatorship would also institute jus soli they would become a child of the dictatorship, too. Conversely, if the child is born in a democracy and the parents are citizens of a dictatorship, the child would be born a citizen of the dictatorship, unless of course the democracy also institutes jus soli. I lament such circumstances, but alas, they are inevitable.

OOC: The right to equal treatment under the law has never, ever been interpreted to give noncitizens the same rights. It means you cannot treat similarly situated people differently. A system where somebody has no citizenship leaves them potentially unable to participate fully in society without the member state ever violating CoCR.

SP is absolutely right. Are you implying that I, let us say as a Norwegian, can move to the United States and immediately vote for president? Am I to move to Austria and immediately try to become Chancellor? There is a reason for the difference of citizen's rights and overall equal treatment under the law.

-

Also, fourth draft hopefully later today.

Sorry for the delay, I've been busy. I should finish editing it tonight or tomorrow. - SSM

[Boston Castle]

“Just a thought, Ambassador, but have you considered moving clause 8 to become the new clause 5? And then basically working the kinks out from moving those around from there? I think clause 8 is rather oddly placed in the grand scheme of this proposal.”

[South St Maarten]

“Just a thought, Ambassador, but have you considered moving clause 8 to become the new clause 5? And then basically working the kinks out from moving those around from there? I think clause 8 is rather oddly placed in the grand scheme of this proposal.”

IC: Appreciate the suggestion, ambassador, and have made the appropriate changes in in Draft IV.

[South St Maarten]

Fourth draft posted. Switched Clause 8 to 5 and added another clause outlining procedure for situations where the mother/father are stateless.

I'll plan to make a draft 5 with any additional comments. Thanks.